Paul Dubé

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the Municipality of West Elgin held meetings that did not comply with the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to livestream to the public all or part of its council meetings on several dates in 2023.

The Ombudsman found no evidence to substantiate the allegation regarding the September 14 meeting, and found the notice for the October 12 meeting provided accurate information.

However, the Ombudsman found that the Municipality did not provide meaningful notice of its council meetings on September 22, September 28, and October 16, resulting in the meetings were effectively closed to the public.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding closed meetings held by the Town of Cochrane council on October 10 and 16, 2023.

Council discussed a proposed property development program to encourage local growth by selling municipally owned land at a nominal fee with a property tax rebate.

The Ombudsman found that while the discussions did not fit within the cited exception for the acquisition or disposition of land because the transactions were too speculative, they did fit within the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations under the Municipal Act, 2001.

Therefore, council did not contravene the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints regarding closed meetings held by the council for the Municipality of Markstay-Warren on November 20 and December 11, 2023.

The closed sessions involved discussions about a volunteer firefighter banquet, the sale of fire trucks, a fire department modernization plan, and an integrity commissioner report.

The Ombudsman found that all discussions fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual under section 239(2)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as they involved scrutiny of the conduct and performance of identifiable individuals.

However, the Ombudsman determined that council contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered before moving into closed session at both meetings.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Town of Cochrane council.

The council discussed the resignation of its integrity commissioner and the process for hiring a replacement in closed session.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion regarding the integrity commissioner's performance and resignation fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the subsequent discussion about the hiring process did not fit within any exception and should have been parsed and held in open session.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville.

The Committee discussed an update on a fundraising campaign for a municipally owned long-term care facility in closed session, citing the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within this exception, nor did it fit within the labour relations exception.

However, a portion of the discussion regarding internal communications processes that involved specific individual donors and their wishes fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

Because this portion could not be parsed from the rest of the internal communications discussion, that specific part did not contravene the Act.

The procedural discussion and the discussion about changes to the fundraising policy did contravene the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints regarding closed meetings held by Norfolk County council and council-in-committee.

The Ombudsman found that the February 14, 2023 meeting did not contravene the Municipal Act, as the discussion fit within the exception for security of the property.

However, the November 15, 2023 and January 16, 2024 meetings contravened the Act because certain discussions did not fit within the cited exceptions.

Furthermore, the January 9, 2024 meeting contravened the Act as the resolution to proceed in camera lacked sufficient detail and the discussion did not fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Township of McGarry council contravened the open meeting rules during an emergency closed session on September 1, 2023, regarding the former Mayor's resignation and filling the resulting vacancies.

The Ombudsman found that portions of the discussion fit within the exceptions for personal matters and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Although discussions about the method to fill the vacancies did not fit within any exception, requiring council to parse the discussion would have detracted from free, open, and uninterrupted discussion.

The Ombudsman also found that the Township provided adequate notice for the meeting and did not hold improper votes in closed session.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated a complaint that the Board of Directors for Saugeen Mobility and Regional Transit (SMART) held a meeting on May 26, 2023, that was improperly closed to the public.

The Ombudsman determined that SMART is a joint local board of its 10 member municipalities and is therefore subject to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that SMART failed to provide public notice of the meeting and improperly closed it to the public.

The Ombudsman recommended that SMART adopt a procedure by-law and comply with the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake.

The Committee had gone into closed session to receive a presentation on proposed changes to the municipality's procurement by-law, citing the education or training exception under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion involved an exchange of information and feedback on the draft by-law, which materially advanced the Committee's business, and therefore did not fit within the education or training exception.

The Ombudsman also determined that the discussion did not qualify for the exceptions regarding personal matters about an identifiable individual or the security of the property of the municipality.

The Ombudsman concluded that the Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and made recommendations to improve compliance.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints regarding closed meetings held by the council for the Township of Jocelyn on five dates in 2023.

The Ombudsman found that the closed session discussions fit within the exceptions for acquisition or disposition of land, advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, and personal matters about an identifiable individual under the Municipal Act, 2001.

No illegal voting occurred during the first four meetings.

However, the Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the Act at its October 10, 2023 meeting by failing to pass a resolution to enter into closed session, failing to take closed meeting minutes, and improperly locking the doors to council chambers at the start of the meeting.

The Ombudsman made several recommendations to improve the Township's compliance and transparency.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting of the Town of Halton Hills council.

The complaint alleged that council's in camera discussion of recent provincial policy announcements did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001, and that council failed to pass a resolution stating the matter would be discussed in closed session.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within the exception for education or training, as its purpose was to provide information about specific policies the Town would need to respond to, rather than general education.

The Ombudsman also found that council contravened the Act by failing to include a general description of the topic in its resolution to proceed into closed session, and noted that the meeting minutes incorrectly suggested the topic had been included in the resolution.

The Ombudsman of Ontario investigated complaints that the Township of Lanark Highlands' Committee of the Whole contravened open meeting rules by discussing an auditor's management letter in a closed session.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exception for the security of the property of the municipality under section 239(2)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the Ombudsman determined that the Township contravened section 239(7) of the Act by failing to keep an adequate record of the in camera proceedings.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Township ensure adequate minutes are kept and suggested audio or video recording of closed sessions as a best practice.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that the Township of Springwater council held a closed meeting on May 3, 2023, in contravention of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The council discussed a rainbow crosswalk project, an economic development assistant hiring process, and a library employment matter in closed session.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions regarding the crosswalk project and the library employment matter fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

While the hiring process discussion did not fit the labour relations exception, a portion fit the personal matters exception, and the remainder could not be parsed.

Therefore, the council did not contravene the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith on September 5 and September 14, 2023, to discuss the potential disposal of municipally owned property.

The Ombudsman found that the council did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The discussions fit within the exceptions for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege and the acquisition or disposition of land.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the council for the Municipality of Temagami.

The complainant alleged that three topics discussed in camera did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions regarding previously owned property, a request to sell property, and issues related to a local long-term care home fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual, acquisition or disposition of land, and litigation or potential litigation, respectively.

The Ombudsman also found that adequate public notice was provided, but recommended as a best practice that meeting minutes and agendas be made publicly available.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Town of Amherstburg council contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Act on three occasions by failing to provide sufficient information about the topics of discussion in its resolutions to proceed into closed session.

However, the Ombudsman found no contraventions regarding a gathering of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, two council meetings that were open to in-person attendance, and a training session that did not constitute a meeting under the Act.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that the Municipality of Calvin's Ad Hoc Code of Conduct Working Group and Ad Hoc Municipal Planning Working Group held meetings without providing public notice, publishing agendas, or recording minutes.

The Ombudsman found that both groups were established by council resolution, met the 50% membership threshold, and exercised delegated authority, making them committees of council subject to open meeting rules.

The Municipality contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and its procedural by-law by failing to provide notice and record minutes, but did not violate the rules regarding agendas, as there is no requirement to publish them.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints that the City of Elliot Lake held closed council meetings on January 12 and 30, 2023, contrary to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the January 12 meeting fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

For the January 30 meeting, the discussion regarding the sale of municipal land fit within the exception for the acquisition or disposition of land.

However, the discussion regarding the management organizational chart was improperly held in closed session, as the first part of the discussion did not involve personal information and did not fit within the personal matters exception.

The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure no subject is discussed in closed session unless it clearly falls within a statutory exception.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint alleging that a quorum of the Community and Protective Services Committee of the City of London held an illegal closed meeting during a site visit to a local non-profit organization.

The Ombudsman found that the gathering constituted a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001, as a quorum was present and committee business was materially advanced.

The Ombudsman recommended that members who organize tours that may be subject to open meeting rules consult with City staff.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint regarding a secret call held by members of council for the Municipality of Casselman following a regular council meeting.

The investigation found that a quorum of council was present and materially advanced council business on six distinct matters during the call.

The Ombudsman concluded that the call constituted an illegal closed meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001, and made recommendations to ensure future compliance with open meeting rules.